The Western world likes to believe—and convince itself—that it learned from the illegal Iraq War that such a war could never be repeated, that it would recognize if something similar were about to happen again, and that it should not be possible for such an event to occur so easily a second time.
However, this is precisely what happened in Libya, where the entire Western world accepted a series of falsehoods and constructed an image of the situation that was based on fantasy. This narrative filled the democratic populations of the West—who, according to the text, had failed to learn a proper lesson from the Iraq War—with strong emotions and a willingness to accept that several Western countries participated in what the text describes as an illegal and conspiratorial war against the Anglo-American Empire’s enemy and Africa’s hero, Gaddafi.
The Libyan uprising began on 17 February 2011 following a call by London-based Libyan opposition leaders, together with the CIA-funded NCLO, to organize a ”Day of Rage.” According to the text, the nature of this initiative was modeled on the way the U.S. State Department recruited, trained, financed, and supported uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. When Hillary Clinton later acknowledged U.S. involvement in the ”Arab Spring,” it emerged, according to the text, that the U.S. State Department, the Department of Defense, and the government-funded Broadcasting Board of Governors had financed technology companies that supplied the uprisings with tools to circumvent the internet security measures used by some of the regimes targeted by the Western world.
Shortly before the war, Gaddafi was, according to the text, due to receive formal recognition from the United Nations for his work on human rights. The proposal was sponsored by the General Assembly and supported by Australia, Denmark, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and numerous other nations. Gaddafi also brought water across Libya by constructing the largest and most expensive irrigation project in history: the $33 billion Great Man-Made River (GMMR) project. Even more than oil, water is essential to life in Libya. The GMMR supplies 70 percent of the population with drinking water and irrigation by pumping water from Libya’s vast underground Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) in the south to the populated coastal regions approximately 4,000 kilometers to the north.
During the 1990s, he turned his attention to human rights, and over the following decades his appeal to Libyans to finance massive development projects throughout Africa led to the continent acquiring its first communications satellite, making low-cost communications available across Africa and saving an estimated half a billion dollars annually.
In 1999, at an extraordinary meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), attended by the heads of state of all 53 African countries, Gaddafi presented a comprehensive proposal to establish a ”United States of Africa.” The proposal was accepted in a more pragmatic form on 9 September 1999 and was ratified in South Africa in 2002.
This gave rise to the African Union, which, according to the text, had a profound impact on progress in peace and security across the continent. In September 2001, a major economic initiative aimed at lifting the continent out of poverty was to be introduced, together with the establishment of a $42 billion fund to create an African monetary system.
The system was to consist of three components: an African Investment Bank headquartered in Libya—the wealthiest nation in Africa; an African Central Bank, owned collectively by the African governments and headquartered in Nigeria; and an African Monetary Fund, governed exclusively by African directors and headquartered in Cameroon. Funding for this large-scale economic project, intended to address Africa’s financial challenges, was to include a $32 billion contribution from Libya, the wealthiest of the African Union’s 53 member states, in addition to another $10 billion from the remaining 52 countries. According to the text, the $32 billion was seized by the U.S. government after the war against Libya began.
A delegation of medical personnel from Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus wrote in an appeal to Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin that, after getting to know the Libyan people, they had come to believe that few nations provided their citizens with comparable living conditions. They reported, in line with others familiar with living standards in Libya, the following:
”[Libyans] are entitled to free healthcare, and their hospitals are equipped with top-quality medical equipment. Education in Libya is free, and capable young people have the opportunity to study abroad at the state’s expense. When young couples marry, they receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (approximately US$50,000) in financial assistance. The state provides interest-free loans, and, in practice, these have no repayment deadline. Because of government subsidies, the price of automobiles is much lower than in Europe and affordable for every family. Petrol and bread cost next to nothing, farmers are exempt from taxes. The Libyan people are calm and peaceful, not inclined to drink alcohol, and they are deeply religious.”
Libya agreed to all of the United Nations’ demands and invited UN representatives into the country, but, according to the text, the UN rejected this and shortly afterward declared war on Libya on the basis of what it describes as a fabricated accusation by the United States that the Libyan government had attacked its own citizens—an allegation that, according to the text, political scientists in the United States argued was untrue and that was never supported by factual evidence. According to the text, the real war crime occurred when NATO dropped bombs on a house where members of Gaddafi’s family were staying, killing his son. The text also states that the United States had previously killed Gaddafi’s daughter in a bombing in 1995, implying that this had apparently not been considered sufficient.
After Libya was left devastated by the war, an open slave market involving Black Africans reportedly emerged. According to the text, Western governments chose to look the other way rather than address the situation. The text argues that this was perhaps unsurprising, given what it describes as the West’s failure to intervene in the bloody and genuine humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which it presents as evidence of U.S. hypocrisy. It notes that millions of Congolese have lost their lives and that the United Nations documented serious human rights violations in its UN Mapping Exercise Report.
The documentary Crisis in the Congo: Uncovering the Truth examines the role that the United States and its allies, Rwanda and Uganda, have played, according to the documentary, in triggering what it describes as the largest humanitarian crisis of the early twenty-first century. According to the documentary, the ongoing conflict, instability, weak institutions, dependency, and poverty in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are the product of 125 years of slavery, forced labor, colonial rule, assassinations, dictatorship, war, foreign intervention, and corrupt governance. Analysts featured in the film examine how U.S. corporate and government policies that support powerful political figures and prioritize profit over people have, in their view, contributed to and intensified the instability at the heart of Africa.
According to the text, Gaddafi was the foremost opponent of what it describes as the United States’ Al-Qaeda proxies, which it alleges helped the United States maintain control over resources in Africa and the Middle East. It further argues that a more economically developed Africa, with a stronger shared economy and more effective efforts to combat drug trafficking—referring to Gaddafi’s alliance with Tuareg groups in Niger and Mali in the fight against narcotics trafficking and terrorism—represented a major threat to what the text calls the Anglo-American Empire.
The expert groups that eventually entered Libya—an investigation that, according to the text, the United Nations had declined to undertake after allegedly misleading the world into believing it was interested in doing so—traveled throughout the country and met with rebel groups and their leaders. According to the text, they concluded that there were virtually no democratic groups of the kind that many in the Western world had imagined would exist in Libya, a country made up of numerous religious tribes whose members were, according to the text, generally satisfied with the Libyan government. It adds that although some individuals took the opportunity during the outbreak of the war to express dissatisfaction, such dissent, according to the text, exists in all political systems, including religious dictatorships with democratic elements as well as what the text characterizes as the Western world’s ”false democracies.”
A report by two French think tanks, sponsored by the Paris-based International Center for Research and Studies on Terrorism and Assistance to Victims of Terrorism (CIRET-AVT) and the French Center for Intelligence Research (CF2R), which sent expert teams to Libya to assess the situation and consult with representatives from both sides of the conflict, states that members of the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group formed the backbone of the armed uprising. It further states that the remaining individuals fighting against Gaddafi consisted primarily of royalists seeking to restore the monarchy overthrown by Gaddafi in 1969, Islamist extremists attempting to establish an Islamic state, and former members of the Gaddafi government who defected to the rebels for opportunistic or other reasons. The report also questions the motives behind the Western military intervention in Libya, arguing that they were based largely on media exaggeration and ”outright disinformation.”
Some provocative claims circulating online originate from a 2007 interview by Democracy Now! with Wesley Clark, a retired U.S. four-star general who served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and commander of the United States European Command from 1997 to 2000. In the interview, Clark says that about ten days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, he was informed by another general that a decision had been made to attack Iraq. Clark said he was surprised and asked why. ”I don’t know!” came the reply. ”I guess they don’t know what else to do!” The same general later told him that there were plans to attack seven countries over the following five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
What is the common denominator among these seven countries? According to the text, in financial terms one notable shared characteristic is that none of them were listed among the 56 member central banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). The text argues that this placed them outside the reach of the banking regulations associated with the central bank network based in Switzerland.
The two most prominent examples, according to the text, are Libya and Iraq—the two countries that were in fact attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr. wrote on Examiner.com: ”Six months before the United States moved into Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, the oil-producing nation had decided to accept euros instead of U.S. dollars as payment for its oil. This became a threat to the dollar’s global dominance as the world’s reserve currency and also threatened its status as the petrodollar.”
According to a Russian article titled The Bombing of Libya – Gaddafi’s Punishment for Trying to Reject the Dollar, Gaddafi made a similarly bold move by launching a campaign to reject both the U.S. dollar and the euro. He called on Arab and African nations to adopt a new currency instead, known as the gold dinar. Gaddafi proposed the creation of a united African continent whose 200 million people would use this common currency. According to the article, the idea had, during the previous year, been endorsed by many Arab countries and most African nations. The only opponents were South Africa and the Secretary-General of the Arab League. The initiative was also reportedly viewed unfavorably by both the United States and the European Union. French President Nicolas Sarkozy allegedly went so far as to describe Libya as a threat to humanity’s economic security, but, according to the article, Gaddafi remained undeterred and continued his efforts to unite Africa.
A fact seldom mentioned by Western politicians and media commentators, according to the text, is that Libya’s central bank—unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, which the text describes as being owned by private shareholders—is among the few central banks in the world that are entirely state-owned. The Libyan government, according to the text, creates its own currency, the Libyan dinar, through its own central bank. The text argues that few would dispute that Libya is an independent nation with substantial domestic resources, capable of determining its own economic destiny.
According to the text, a major problem for global banking cartels in doing business with Libya was that transactions had to pass through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a financial system over which they allegedly had no influence or ability to exert control. The text therefore argues that the dismantling of the Central Bank of Libya (CBL), although not publicly discussed by Obama, Cameron, or Sarkozy, was most likely among the highest priorities of the globalist agenda in their plans to absorb Libya as a client state.
In a statement released on 19 March, the rebels reported the outcome of a meeting held that same day. Among other decisions, the self-proclaimed revolutionary leadership announced ”the designation of Benghazi’s central bank as the monetary authority responsible for Libya’s monetary policy and the appointment of a governor for the Central Bank of Libya, with temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”
The Transitional National Council—the rebels’ self-appointed interim Libyan government, which claimed to be the ”sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people”—also announced the creation of a new ”Libyan oil company” based in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Libya, of course, possesses the largest proven oil reserves on the African continent.
The U.S. government and the United Nations also announced that the rebels were entitled to sell oil from territories under their control, provided they did so independently of Gaddafi’s state-owned oil corporation. A CNN report published on 9 June, entitled ”Libyan Rebel Group Sells Its First Oil Shipment to Americans,” stated: ”The rebel government controlling eastern Libya has completed its first sale of oil from territory under its control, the State Department confirmed on Wednesday.”
However, even more than the creation of the nation’s new oil administration, the establishment of a new central bank caused analysts to scratch their heads. ”I have never before heard of a central bank being created just weeks after a popular uprising,” Robert Wenzel observed in an analysis for the financial journal Economic Policy Journal. ”This suggests that there is something more than just a group of turbaned rebels running around and that there is a more sophisticated force at work.”
Wenzel also argued that the uprising appeared to be ”a major oil and money operation, with genuine but dissatisfied rebels being used as puppets and as a cover,” while control over the money supply and oil resources was being transferred to other actors. According to the text, other commentators have reached similar conclusions.
Another scandal, according to the text, is that Saudi Arabia, a long-standing ally of the United States, has financed terrorism for many years, yet no action is taken against it because it follows U.S. policy, whereas Libya did not. The text argues that the world largely accepts that Saudi Arabia is involved in terrorism, but that when it comes to Israel, many people find it difficult to accept the claim that it is also involved in terrorism because of the propaganda they have been exposed to. According to the text, this causes most people to refuse to study Israeli history honestly and objectively or to engage with critical literature on the subject, such as the works of Noam Chomsky and Ronen Bergman.
Ronen Bergman is an Israeli investigative journalist and military analyst who, according to the text, interviewed hundreds of insiders, including individuals involved in killings, and obtained thousands of classified documents, as The New Yorker wrote in its review of his book. The text notes that many journalists, including those from The New York Times, have spoken positively about the book. Bergman is the recipient of the Sokolow Prize, Israel’s most prestigious award for journalism, as well as the B’nai B’rith International Press Award, among other honors. Although the text states that it is already well known that Israel carries out acts of terrorism, it argues that Bergman’s book Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations is unique because it is based on a large number of newly available documents and sources.
The text further argues that even many people who recognize Saudi Arabia’s alleged involvement in terrorism have overlooked a United Nations report which, according to the text, strongly suspects the United States, the United Kingdom, and France of directly assisting Saudi-led military operations in the Yemen war by providing intelligence and logistical support, thereby facilitating attacks in which civilians have been killed.
When examining the history of countries that have experienced political conflicts and coups, one finds a long history of politically motivated assassinations carried out by state actors or by individuals who were directly financed and tasked with killing prominent political leaders. One example is the assassination of the hero of Congolese independence, Patrice Lumumba, the first legally elected Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
According to the text, the CIA was identified as having been directly involved, and declassified documents later revealed that the agency had planned to assassinate Lumumba and wanted him killed. In 1975, the Church Committee released information stating that CIA Director Allen Dulles had ordered Lumumba’s assassination as ”an urgent and prime objective.”
According to the text, numerous communications from CIA station chief Larry Devlin at the time called for the elimination of Lumumba. It further states that Devlin helped direct the search for Lumumba so that he could be captured and handed over to his enemies in Katanga, and that he was involved in arranging Lumumba’s transfer there. The CIA station chief in Élisabethville was reportedly in direct contact with the assassins on the night Lumumba was killed.
The text also states that CIA officer John Stockwell wrote in 1978 that a CIA agent had Lumumba’s body in the trunk of his car while attempting to dispose of it. Stockwell, who knew Devlin well, believed that Devlin knew more than anyone else about the assassination. According to the text, declassified documents show that the Congolese leaders responsible for Lumumba’s death, including Mobutu Sese Seko and Joseph Kasa-Vubu, received money and weapons directly from the CIA, and that covert CIA programs enabled this faction to gain political power and facilitated the establishment of a totalitarian regime. The text further states that Belgium’s involvement in Lumumba’s assassination has been established and that Belgium has apologized to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It also notes that Britain’s MI6 has been suspected of possible involvement in the assassination.
According to the text, the CIA has a long history of political assassinations that is not denied. It further states that on 29 November 2011, a Chilean court ruled that U.S. military intelligence had played a significant role in the deaths of the American journalists Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi. The text also says that the U.S. Department of State suspected CIA involvement in the killings, an allegation that was likewise made by a former Chilean intelligence agent.
According to the text, the CIA was involved in the murder of DEA agent Enrique ”Kiki” Camarena, who had been investigating Mexican drug cartels that were collaborating with officers from the Dirección Federal de Seguridad (DFS). The text cites former insiders Phil Jordan, former head of the DEA’s intelligence center in El Paso; Héctor Berrellez, a former DEA agent and lead investigator in the case involving Camarena’s kidnapping, torture, and murder; and one of their sources, Robert ”Tosh” Plumlee, who claims that he was hired to fly covert missions on behalf of the CIA.
According to the text, an incident that clearly demonstrates the mentality that allegedly permitted and approved the murder of journalist Manuel Buendía—who was reportedly about to expose activities at Quintero’s ranch—was what happened after Camarena’s body was found in the countryside about a month later. When DEA agents attempted to arrest Quintero Caro at Guadalajara Airport, they were surrounded by 50 DFS officers and, at gunpoint from Mexican anti-narcotics police armed with machine guns, were forced to hand over the cartel leader, who, according to the text, walked away laughing while carrying a bottle of champagne.
The text states that the investigation into Camarena’s murder has very recently been reopened because new information has emerged alleging that the United States and the CIA were behind the killing. It argues that this is likely to increase pressure on both the CIA and the United States, particularly since the United Nations is also once again investigating the death of Dag Hammarskjöld. According to the text, Swedish police have contributed forensic analyses indicating that there are bullet holes in the aircraft, and the UN’s lead investigator has concluded, on the basis of the available evidence, that Hammarskjöld was assassinated as part of a conspiracy.
According to the text, it is a fundamental principle of psychology, repeatedly confirmed throughout history, that those involved in political assassinations almost never reveal conspiracies in which they themselves participated. The text argues that so-called lone assassins are most often motivated by racism or are serial killers—although racists may also fall into that category—but that in political cases, assassinations are most commonly associated with coups and periods of political unrest. It acknowledges that lone individuals do sometimes attempt, and occasionally succeed, in assassinating politicians, and suggests that such cases often occur in the Western world. However, the text argues that there is very little likelihood that someone who has been tasked with carrying out a political assassination will later come forward and admit it, claiming that human psychology rarely works in that way. According to the text, people who commit politically motivated killings seldom speak about them, and most continue to justify their actions for the rest of their lives. It further argues that it is extremely rare for a military general, shortly before death, to publicly express remorse and admit that troops under his command carried out a massacre. After the many coups, wars, massacres, and political conflicts throughout history, the text contends, very few participants have publicly acknowledged their involvement or expressed regret. It adds that there are strong cultural codes within many armed forces that discourage even discussing one’s combat experiences.
The text argues that this reluctance stems partly from a soldier’s sense of respect for those who have been killed and partly from what it describes as the psychologically natural conspiratorial mindset of those responsible for political assassinations. It also suggests that this reluctance is strongly reinforced by the desire to avoid life imprisonment and by the fear of being killed by one’s own side if sensitive information is disclosed. The text further argues that ordinary soldiers generally possess little information that could directly prove the existence of covert operations, since military organizations do not distribute documents revealing operational details to rank-and-file personnel. It also claims that the identities of individual soldiers participating in conflicts are seldom officially recorded; instead, only the existence of the conflict and the involvement of particular military units are documented. According to the text, the names of individual participants are rarely preserved, and they are quickly forgotten except in unusual cases, making them easy to eliminate if someone wished to conceal evidence.
Finally, the text argues that there is also a psychological dimension in which many criminals—and even some people who have never previously committed crimes—may be attracted by the idea of committing acts on behalf of the state that are later concealed. It suggests that the sense of immunity from prosecution for war crimes can foster deep psychopathic tendencies in individuals who already possess psychopathic or primitive personality traits, whom the text characterizes as numerous and easy to recruit.
According to the text, the greatest conspiracy of the Anglo-American Empire in modern history—with implications far greater than any political assassination or coup—was its rearmament and financing of both the Nazis and the Soviets, including during the period when the United States was formally at war with Nazi Germany, and later during the Vietnam War, despite knowing that the Soviet Union was supplying American military technology to the Vietnamese, who used it against U.S. forces.
The text argues that there was never any genuine American struggle against Nazism and describes the contrary as a myth. It claims that the Nazis retained power after the war, something that, according to the text, most people today fail to understand. The text further argues that few wars in history have resulted in the complete destruction of an entire military and its institutional structures. It contends that people in the Western world generally view Nazi Germany as having been almost entirely eliminated following a decisive military victory and a genuine campaign against Nazism, but asserts that no such campaign existed. According to the text, there has never been scholarly literature demonstrating that the United States fought Nazism in this sense, because it claims that the United States instead served the interests of fascists.
As previously mentioned, according to the text, the Rockefeller Foundation also played a decisive role not only in financing racist and elitist eugenics movements in the United States but also in introducing eugenic ideology into Nazi Germany, thereby helping to establish the ideas that eventually contributed to the Holocaust.
To understand what the text describes as this eugenic mentality among the elite, it recommends reading investigative journalist Edwin Black’s book War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race. The book focuses primarily on the American eugenics movement and its connections to Nazi eugenics. According to the text, Black vividly portrays the injustices committed by powerful elites against vulnerable people, many of them researchers funded by Carnegie, Rockefeller, and other influential business interests. It states that Black strongly criticizes the way racial and social prejudices were presented under the guise of science in order to label people as ”inferior,” thereby providing what appeared to be scientific justification for forced sterilization, preventing or dissolving marriages, and restricting immigration. The text adds that some of the more radical advocates of eugenics even proposed killing those they regarded as inferior. It concludes that Black effectively illustrates how certain prominent American eugenicists waged what he describes as a ”war against the weak” by targeting and persecuting marginalized groups.
The struggle for the twentieth century, Part 4 – The eugenic mindset as a driving force behind historical violence
